-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of
Julian Mehnle
Sent: donderdag 7 april 2005 13:46
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] IESG evaluation of SPF
Scott Kitterman wrote:
How about, "Outside the scope of the SPF design".
This is all splitting hairs. They're essentially all the same as
"undefined", which IMO is unacceptable in a specification
that deals with "v=spf1".
Why are we seeking a compromise? What's the point? (Serious
question!) Do we just want to please the IETF or somebody else?
Since RFC publication is the direct responsibility of the RFC Editor,
under the general direction of the IAB (RFC 1602), his commentary is not
without weight, of course. Quite frankly, I was not even aware the RFC
editor was allowed to suggest changes for content in the manner that he
did. I thought his role was to determine suitability for publication based
on:
Relevance to Internet activity
Meets the technical standard for RFCs
Meets the editorial standard for RFCs
The true role and importance of the RFC editor seems to vary, depending on
who you talk to. :)
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx